Rechercher sur ce blogue

lundi 24 février 2014

La portée du privilège générique relativement à la preuve matérielle

United States of America v. Berke, 2013 BCSC 619 (CanLII)


[26]        I am not satisfied that Mr. Berke has met the onus on him of showing that any of these documents are subject to solicitor-client privilege. The mere fact that they may have been sent to or received from a lawyer does not establish that they are privileged. As Gray J. put it in Keefer Laundry Ltd. v. Pellerin Milnor Corp., 2006 BCSC 1180 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1180 at para. 61:
A lawyer is not a safety-deposit box. Merely sending documents that were created outside the solicitor-client relationship and not for the purpose of obtaining legal advice to a lawyer will not make those documents privileged. Nor will privilege extend to physical objects or “neutral” facts that exist independently of clients’ communications. (R. v. Murray 2000 CanLII 22378 (ON SC), (2000), 48 O.R. (3d) 544, 186 D.L.R. (4th) 125.)

Aucun commentaire:

Publier un commentaire

Le dédommagement à la victime doit toujours être envisagé lors de la détermination de la peine

En matière de vol qualifié, la menace de violence n'a pas à être explicite : elle peut être implicitement déduite des gestes, des mots et du contexte global dès lors qu'ils créent raisonnablement un sentiment d'appréhension chez la victime

R. v. Hodson, 2001 ABCA 111 Lien vers la décision [ 10 ]             The cases given to us on this issue are many and varied. Several are ov...